More On Rights...

[Psychic Missile]

Except he was talking about forcing the employer providing the contraception, not the unborn. So actually the problem is that you don't understand what he's saying.

That's still stupid because the sentiment can be reversed when it comes to the wider issue of business regulation.

Hobby lobby already provided birth control so that was not the issue at all. They objected to only abortifacients, so abortion was indeed the issue with the Hobby Lobby.

Their distinction is medically false.

[seer]

I don't think fetuses have rights or should have rights but that wasn't where my objection came from.

Maybe Psychic Missile shouldn't have rights too then.

[seer]

Their distinction is medically false.

Nope, not according to the Supreme Court.

[Psychic Missile]

Nope, not according to the Supreme Court.

Can you provide a quotation proving this?

[Bill the Cat]

I don't think fetuses have rights or should have rights .

They DO have rights separate from the mother's. The UVVA grants them rights from the moment of conception to birth that equal the rights of the mother with only 2 exceptions, abortion and the application of the death penalty

[Darth Executor]

That's still stupid because the sentiment can be reversed when it comes to the wider issue of business regulation.

No it can't. Some regulations are there to protect people from active harm which is not in the same class as not paying for a specific item you can just buy yourself.

And seeing how you misread simple text maybe you should stop identifying other things as stupid.

[Psychic Missile]

They DO have rights separate from the mother's. The UVVA grants them rights from the moment of conception to birth that equal the rights of the mother with only 2 exceptions, abortion and the application of the death penalty

Considering the fact that enforcement is based on the desire of the mother, I can't agree with that.

No it can't. Some regulations are there to protect people from active harm which is not in the same class as not paying for a specific item you can just buy yourself.

And seeing how you misread simple text maybe you should stop identifying other things as stupid.

An employer who needs or wants something says "we have a right to this" but they never say "whose rights must we violate in order to get what we want?"

See? Also, I didn't misread the text. That was your assumption.

[seer]

Can you provide a quotation proving this?

What did you even follow the case? Hobby Lobby objected to 4 birth control methods that could be used as abortifacients - if the court did not agree that they were possible abortifacients then there wouldn't have been a case.

[Psychic Missile]

What did you even follow the case? Hobby Lobby objected to 4 birth control methods that could be used as abortifacients - if the court did not agree that they were possible abortifacients then there wouldn't have been a case.

It is my understanding that the matter revolves around the religious freedom of a corporation as it applies to the healthcare law, not whether or not certain birth control methods cause abortions.

[Darth Executor]

An employer who needs or wants something says "we have a right to this" but they never say "whose rights must we violate in order to get what we want?"

wha

See? Also, I didn't misread the text. That was your assumption.

"Is he talking about the rights of the fetus? If so, he's just as stupid as ever."

He wasn't talking about the rights of the fetus, ergo you misread the text. It's not an assumption, it's there plain as day.

[Psychic Missile]

wha

"The sentiment can be reversed when it comes to the wider issue of business regulation."

"No it can't."

I reversed the sentiment.

"Is he talking about the rights of the fetus? If so, he's just as stupid as ever."

He wasn't talking about the rights of the fetus, ergo you misread the text. It's not an assumption, it's there plain as day.

Wow, I'm really sorry about that. You're absolutely right. I forgot about that first post and was referring back to my second post.

[Jedidiah]

Their distinction is medically false.

Only if you are medically ignorant. There is a big difference between contraception and abortion.

[Bill the Cat]

Considering the fact that enforcement is based on the desire of the mother, I can't agree with that.

Not sure where you heard that. But the text of the law says:

(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

So, despite your disagreement, the law specifies that the child is a separate entity and has separate rights from the mother.

[Psychic Missile]

Not sure where you heard that. But the text of the law says:

(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

So, despite your disagreement, the law specifies that the child is a separate entity and has separate rights from the mother.

It seems more like property law than murder law. If someone destroys your property without your permission, it is a crime. If it is with your permission, it is not a crime. The same distinction exists here. In this law, if the mother does not want the fetus to die, then it applies. If the mother did want the fetus to die, as in the abortion clause, then the law does not apply. Compare that to the death of a child. It doesn't matter whether or not the mother wanted the child to die, because the child has rights outside of his or her relationship to his or her parents.

[tabibito]

(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b)

The critical point would be subsection (b). Termination of a pregnancy would only count as a crime if it was the result of a violation of that subsection.